MUHAMMED V A Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these cases are referred to this Court to consider the question relating to the stage at which sanction under section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act') is to be taken from the competent authority.

(2.) The short facts of the cases which we are dealing with are as under:-

(3.) The learned Single Judge while hearing the matter, by order dated 17/12/2015, observed that the judgment in Anil Kumar (supra), is directly in conflict with the view enunciated by four earlier three-Judge Bench rulings in R.R.Chari v. State of U.P., 1951 AIR(SC) 207, Gopal Das Sindhi v. State of Assam, 1961 AIR(SC) 986, Jamuna Singh and Others v. Bhadai Shai, 1964 AIR(SC) 1541 and Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V.Narayana Reddy, 1976 AIR(SC) 1672. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge after referring to Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra, 2014 2 KerLT 809(SC) observed that when the High Courts are encountered with two or more mutually irreconcilable decisions of the Supreme Court, then the inviolable recourse is to apply the earliest view as the subsequent one would fall in the category of per incuriam. Accordingly, in para 20 of the order, questions have been formulated for consideration and it was felt that the matter be placed before a bench of two Judges to give a considered opinion on the said questions, which are as under:-